From this story, dated today:
The source, who was not authorized to speak on the record, said Obama will formally announce the nomination on Monday.
The Sebelius pick caps a week in which Obama underscored his resolve to pass a major health care overhaul this year. He issued a challenge to Congress in his speech Tuesday, and followed up Thursday with a budget that requested an eye-popping $634 billion over 10 years, which the administration called a "down payment on coverage for all." This week, Obama will host lawmakers of both parties and representatives of major interest groups, from insurers to drug companies to consumers, at a White House summit on health care reform.
Sebelius, 60, is seen as a solid choice to head HHS because as a governor responsible for the Medicaid program in Kansas, she faced the pressure of rising health care costs directly, and saw how hard it is to expand coverage, particularly in bad economic times. She is also familiar with the insurance industry, a key interest group in the health care debate. Before becoming governor, she served as insurance commissioner, and her fellow state commissioners selected her to be national president of their association.
And:
But no mention that "abortion foes" also have concerns (understatement, yes) about Sebelius because she is a Catholic with a consistent history of support for abortion, including speaking at Planned Parenthood fundraisers. But "anti-choice" fanatics (such as myself, I suppose) shouldn't be concerned, claims a column on the RH (Reproductive Health) Reality Check website, because although Sebelius is completely supportive of a woman's right to kill her baby, she is equally supportive of women who decide to not kill their children:
What is true
and what the anti-choice advocates don't like is that Governor Sebelius
is unequivocally pro-reproductive health care. But, that does not mean
abortion care alone. What they choose to ignore is that she is a strong
advocate for the health care of children, for prenatal care for women
and for preventive medicine. This, unfortunately, gets lost in the debate.
But, see, here's the problem: being pro-life is not about providing "comprehensive medical care" that includes the option of aborting babies; it both logically inconsistent and morally bankrupt. It's like saying you are pro-liberty but that you make allowances for folks who would like to own a slave or two, or saying you are pro-marriage as long as adults can marry eight-year-olds. The rhetoric of "anti-choice" is accurate on one hand (those opposed to abortion believe the choice to abort is wrong) and misleading on another since it tells us absolutely nothing about the moral veracity of abortion. For example, I am opposed to rape, incest, child molestation, genocide, and unjust wars, so I am therefore "anti-choice" when it comes to people choosing those evil acts. The rhetorical heart of such language is to remove moral actions from the realm of objective truth and place them in the sphere of subjective desires and interests.
Meanwhile, "anti-choice abortion foes" can try, if they wish, to take heart in candidate Obama's statement, "I don't know anybody who is pro-abortion. I think it's very important to start with that premise." I think it's more important to start with candidate Obama's promise to the loyal minions and lackeys of Planned Barrenhood: "There will always be people, many of goodwill, who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield." So far, that's a promise he's been keeping.
• Obama's nominee for Office of Legal Counsel: pregnancy is slavery (Feb. 27, 2009)
What I think we have to attack head-on is the notion that "universal health care" is good.
It's not good. It's universal behavior-control. Sure, babies and old people should get some doctoring. But we shouldn't have to pay for:" Ask your doctor about..."
The medical industry -- doctors, nurses, hospitals and insurance companies -- is a gigantic leach sucking the lifeblood out of our society. That's what needs to be reformed and down-sized.
Posted by: Robert Miller | Saturday, February 28, 2009 at 08:07 PM
Someone should ask Gov. Sebelius how her Catholic faith strengthens her in her support for a woman's right to choose. She should be encouraged to develop her thoughts so we could understand better why and how she makes her political decisions.
This past week I spoke with a priest, beloved by the students, who works at the local Newman Center. He also said that the pro-choice people do not support abortion. He continued saying that he was against extremists on both sides. He cited examples from his life where women had been under stress because of their pregnancies. I listened, thanked him, and left depressed.
Has any novelist described our lives with the abortion business as part of the background? Think of what Flaubert, Mann, Dostoevsky, or Gogol would do with all this material! Flaubert would show us how we never really learn anything and continue in our sinful ways. Mann would sit back and serenely describe the unfolding of God's plan, and we would marvel. Dostoevsky would make us experience the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. Gogol would make us laugh and laugh at our incompetence and corruption.
Posted by: Dan Deeny | Sunday, March 01, 2009 at 05:34 AM
I'm not stating anything here that is new. But I'll restate something that is becoming clearer to me by the month: The growing number of prominent Catholics who are openly pro-abortion and who are not disciplined by the Catholic church is a growing scandal. For Catholics, especially the younger ones, it provides an argument that "it's OK to be Catholic and pro-choice." For non-Catholics who pay attention to the Catholic Church, it gives the strong impression the Catholic Church isn't serious about what it says, and why would anybody be drawn to a church that pays lip service to important issues?
(I spend a lot of time with Protestants in a large denomination that is staunchly pro-life, and believe me when I say this has become a frequent topic of conversation now: Why aren't the Catholics following their church's teachings on abortion? Or worse: The Catholics got a pro-abortion president elected.)
Where is the discipline?
Posted by: MarkAA | Sunday, March 01, 2009 at 05:46 AM
Any word yet from Prof.Kmiec?
Posted by: vincent manning | Sunday, March 01, 2009 at 06:38 AM
It seems that wayward Catholics are being recruited for crucial positions in the current administration to mock and undermine the last bastion of morality and sanity in society--the Catholic Church. This attack is all the more insidious because "Catholics" are at the forefront of using their positions of power to try to destroy the Church. This is nothing less than a spiritual battle against the forces of Hell.
Posted by: Marguerite | Sunday, March 01, 2009 at 07:14 AM
You are right Marguerite. That has always been a sound military strategy for taking down an enemy regime. Tap into any dissent that you can find, wine them, dine them, and use them against their home.
It has taken some time, but I think that the Bishops are gradually becoming aware of the real problem here, aware enough to begin to take public action commensurate with the public scandal.
Posted by: LJ | Sunday, March 01, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Yes, Prof. Kmiec must right now be preparing a scholarly and helpful statement. MarkAA, Marguerite, and LJ have it right. Yes, this is a scandal, and the Obama-Biden Administration does seem to be employing Catholics as cover for a very interesting, but cruel, social policy.
Posted by: Dan Deeny | Sunday, March 01, 2009 at 02:35 PM
I read the article and find it most amazing that it is coming from ignatious. It is not difficult to see this is a writier that does not know the living God. Killing the unborn is never in the interest of the God of creation. There is never a time in which abortion is an act of love for the glory of God. It is at its core evil and all the words of this author is from the father of lies. Period. Love would be to do the will of the Father. May the Lord convict this man and may the press of Ignatious come under God's judgement.
Amen
Posted by: Kim Lehman | Monday, March 02, 2009 at 07:25 PM
Kim: I think you've misread the post. Please read it again...
Posted by: Carl E. Olson | Monday, March 02, 2009 at 09:59 PM